Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy Research Articles

Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique

ObjectiveRadical prostatectomy is the recommended treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, it is an invasive procedure that can leave serious morbidity. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was introduced with the aim of reducing postoperative morbidity and facilitating rapid recovery compared to the traditional Walsh's open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Therefore, a protocol was developed to perform an open prostatectomy comparable to that performed by robotics, but without involving novel instrumentation. MethodsA total of 220 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy. They were divided into two groups: anterograde technique (115 patients) and the retrograde method (105 patients). The study outcomes were observed 3 months after surgery. ResultsNo differences were found in terms of surgical time, hospital stay, and suction drainage. However, reduced bleeding was observed in the anterograde technique (p=0.0003), with rapid anastomosis duration (p=0.005). Among the patients, 60.9% undergoing the anterograde technique were continent 3 months after surgery compared to 42.9% treated by the retrograde method (p=0.007). Additionally, fewer complications in terms of the number (p=0.007) and severity (p=0.0006) were observed in the anterograde technique. ConclusionThe anterograde method displayed increased efficiency in reducing complications, compared to the retrograde technique.

Description of the Open Anterograde Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy Technique

Background: This study aimed to reproduce the anterograde technique used in minimally invasive robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy through an open retropubic approach without increasing procedural complexity or cost. The main surgical steps of this technique follow the recommendations of the 2012 Pasadena Consensus Panel for Robotic Surgery modified by the authors to adapt to open retropubic approach. Methods: Ten consecutive eligible men with localized prostate cancer underwent open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with urethrovesical anastomosis by running suture, consistent with the Pasadena consensus procedure for robotic radical prostatectomy. Results: All procedures were completed as planned (mean procedure duration, 145.5 min; hospital stay, 3.4 days with 3 days of suction drainage; duration of indwelling vesical catheterization, 8 days). At the 1-year follow-up, all patients achieved oncological control. Eight patients (80%) achieved urinary continence within 90 days; five (50%) were continent immediately after indwelling catheter removal. Four minor complications occurred (Clavien-Dindo grade I and IIIa). Conclusion: Open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy allowed the accomplishment of the same technique used in the minimally invasive surgery through the open approach. However, it is necessary to confirm these results through a study with an adequate number of patients comparing with the gold standard technique.

Validation of a Genomic Classifier that Predicts Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy in an At Risk Patient Population

Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy are candidates for secondary therapy. However, this higher risk population is heterogeneous. Many cases do not metastasize even when conservatively managed. Given the limited specificity of pathological features to predict metastasis, newer risk prediction models are needed. We report a validation study of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis after radical prostatectomy in a high risk population. A case-cohort design was used to sample 1,010 patients after radical prostatectomy at high risk for recurrence who were treated from 2000 to 2006. Patients had preoperative prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, Gleason 8 or greater, pT3b or a Mayo Clinic nomogram score of 10 or greater. Patients with metastasis at diagnosis or any prior treatment for prostate cancer were excluded from analysis. A 20% random sampling created a subcohort that included all patients with metastasis. We generated 22-marker genomic classifier scores for 219 patients with available genomic data. ROC and decision curves, competing risk and weighted regression models were used to assess genomic classifier performance. The genomic classifier AUC was 0.79 for predicting 5-year metastasis after radical prostatectomy. Decision curves showed that the genomic classifier net benefit exceeded that of clinical only models. The genomic classifier was the predominant predictor of metastasis on multivariable analysis. The cumulative incidence of metastasis 5 years after radical prostatectomy was 2.4%, 6.0% and 22.5% in patients with low (60%), intermediate (21%) and high (19%) genomic classifier scores, respectively (p<0.001). Results indicate that genomic information from the primary tumor can identify patients with adverse pathological features who are most at risk for metastasis and potentially lethal prostate cancer.

Risk Stratification of Patients with Extraprostatic Extension and Negative Lymph Nodes at Radical Prostatectomy: Identifying Optimal Candidates for Adjuvant Therapy

Randomized trials demonstrate a benefit to adjuvant radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically locally advanced tumors. However, limited data exist on natural history, specifically in men with extraprostatic extension, and wide variability in outcomes has been reported. We evaluated long-term outcomes in patients with pT3aN0 disease and determined predictors of recurrence in these men. We evaluated 20,744 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our clinic between 1987 and 2011. Of these men 1,073 with pT3aN0 disease were identified who did not receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate stepwise selection was used to develop a prognostic model for biochemical recurrence. Median followup after radical prostatectomy was 10.9 years, during which 449 patients experienced biochemical recurrence. On stepwise selection preoperative prostate specific antigen (HR 1.3, p=0.0003), clinical tumor stage (HR 1.2, p=0.001), pathological Gleason score (HR 1.9, p<0.0001), surgical margin status (HR 1.6, p<0.0001) and detectable first postoperative prostate specific antigen (HR 2.2, p<0.0001) were significantly associated with biochemical recurrence. Cumulative weighted scores of these variables were used to stratify patients into quintiles according to biochemical recurrence risk. The 15-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate in the lowest to the highest risk group was 70%, 56%, 44%, 34% and 25%, respectively (p<0.0001). The c-index for this model was 0.69. We present a model to individualize the estimation of biochemical recurrence in men with pT3aN0 disease at radical prostatectomy. These data may be used for patient counseling, specifically in regard to risk stratification when discussing secondary therapy.

Men with Low Preoperative Sexual Function May Benefit from Nerve Sparing Radical Prostatectomy

We determined the effect of nerve sparing radical prostatectomy on sexual and urinary function in men at various levels of pretreatment sexual function. Men in the CaPSURE™ (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) database who underwent radical prostatectomy and had baseline and 2-year posttreatment UCLA-PCI sexual function and urinary function scores were selected. Nerve sparing was categorized as bilateral, unilateral or none and the level of pretreatment sexual function was divided into quartiles. The cohort was divided into subgroups of nerve sparing technique and pretreatment sexual function. Differences between sexual function and urinary function among subgroups were determined. A test of interaction was performed between preoperative sexual function and degree of nerve sparing on postoperative sexual function and urinary function scores. A total of 1,322 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Median patient age was 61 years (range 41 to 79). Bilateral, unilateral and no nerve sparing procedures were performed in 899, 200 and 223 men, respectively. The effects of nerve sparing on sexual function differed among the quartiles of preoperative sexual function (p <0.01). Nerve sparing did not have an effect on the sexual function of men in the lowest quartile of preoperative sexual function score (p = 0.15) but did have a significant beneficial effect on sexual function in the higher 3 quartiles (p = 0.04, p <0.01 and p <0.01, respectively). Alternatively, nerve sparing improved urinary function in men in the lowest quartile of baseline sexual function. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy results in better sexual function outcomes than no nerve sparing in most men except those with little baseline function. Urinary function was positively impacted in all men. Men who are suitable candidates for nerve preservation may benefit from nerve sparing surgery. Poorer baseline sexual function should not exclude these men from such surgery.

The Impact of Anatomical Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy on Cancer Control: The 30-Year Anniversary

Radical prostatectomy has decreased prostate cancer specific mortality in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. We report oncological outcomes of the longest running series of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy on the 30th anniversary of the inaugural operation. A total of 4,478 men underwent anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy, as performed by a single surgeon (PCW), at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions from 1982 to 2011, without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. During a median followup of 10 years (range 1 to 29), we examined progression-free, metastasis-free and cancer specific survival. The overall 25-year progression-free, metastasis-free and cancer specific survival rates were 68%, 84% and 86%, respectively, although there were significant differences in treatment outcomes between men treated in the pre-PSA and PSA eras. In each era, there were significant differences in progression-free, metastasis-free and cancer specific survival by D'Amico risk groups. In multivariable models considering prostatectomy features, pathological stage and grade were significantly associated with the risk of metastatic progression and disease specific mortality. Excellent prostate cancer specific survival was demonstrated up to 30 years after surgery. Clinical risk categories and pathological tumor features were significant predictors of long-term disease specific outcomes, supporting their ongoing use in risk stratification and management decisions. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy continues to represent the gold standard in the surgical management of clinically localized prostate cancer to which alternate treatment options should be compared.

Case for resurgence of radical perineal prostatecomy in Indian subcontinent

Introduction:Radical perineal prostatectomy was the first surgery described for prostatic carcinoma (Young, 1904) but it lost its eminent status after Walsh's description in 1982 of anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy followed by the enthusiasm in laparoscopy and now robotics. It made resurgence after it was realized in early 1990s that the pelvic lymph node dissection is needed only in selected cases. Last decade witnessed over 80 publications addressing the results and advances in the perineal approach. Strangely, centres from the subcontinent have chosen to ignore this resurgence. We describe our early experience with the technique in 35 patients and present the case for its more widespread usage.Patients and Methods:Thirty five patients of clinically localized carcinoma prostate were operated by perineal route in our institution from December 2006 onwards. All patients had serum prostate specific antigen levels less than 10 ng/ml.Results:Operating time was 2 to 3.5 hours (mean 2.5 hours). Rectal injury occurred in three patients but was closed primarily in all and none required a colostomy. Mean duration of hospital stay was four days. The disease was organ confined in 25(71%). Positive margins were seen in 5(14%) patients. Biochemical recurrence occurred in 17% patients at one year. Seventy six percent patients had achieved continence at one year.Conclusions:As the world is taking note of radical perineal prostatectomy again, with a very small learning curve, minimal invasion and good oncological control urologists from Indian subcontinent should also embrace this procedure in view of the relative limited resources available.

Editorial Comment

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Jan 2012Editorial Comment Yair Lotan Yair LotanYair Lotan More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.163AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Comment." The Journal of Urology, 187(1), pp. 127–128 References 1 : Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am2001; 28: 555. Google Scholar Department of Urology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 1January 2012Page: 127-128 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yair Lotan More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Cadaveric Analysis of Periprostatic Nerve Distribution: An Anatomical Basis for High Anterior Release During Radical Prostatectomy?

An accurate, complete understanding of the prostate neuroanatomy is required to optimize nerve sparing techniques during radical prostatectomy. However, the precise topography and function of the periprostatic nerves remain contentious and there is uncertainty about which nerve sparing technique is most optimal. We accurately quantified the distribution, precise localization and cross-sectional area of periprostatic neural tissue using cadaveric specimens. We analyzed 13 cadaveric hemipelves using hematoxylin and eosin stained sections from the base, mid zone and apex of each prostate. Each section was digitized and divided into 6 sectors numbered clockwise. Analysis was performed using National Institutes of Health ImageJ software to calculate the total periprostatic neural cross-sectional area per sector. Calculating the total neural cross-sectional area highlighted a decrease from prostate base to mid zone to apex of 24.7, 19.7 and 13.7 mm(2), respectively. Most neural tissue was located in the posterolateral region. However, the proportion surrounding the anterior part of the prostate increased toward the apex with a median of 6.0% and 7.6% at the base and mid zone regions, respectively, increasing to 11.2% at the apex. Simple numerical nerve quantification may be insufficient to accurately describe the periprostatic neural distribution. Calculating nerve bundle cross-sectional area confirmed that most neural tissue is in the posterolateral region, although the proportion located anterior increases from base to apex. Thus, higher release of the periprostatic fascia may be indicated toward the apex.

A Critical Analysis of the Tumor Volume Threshold for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Using a Data Set of a Randomized Screening Trial

The identification of clinically insignificant prostate cancer could help avoid overtreatment. Current criteria for insignificant prostate cancer use a tumor volume threshold of less than 0.5 ml for the index tumor. In this study we reassess this tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using an independent data set. The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was calculated by modeling lifetime risk estimates of prostate cancer diagnosis in screened and nonscreened participants in a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. Using lifetime risk estimates 50.8% of screen detected prostate cancer was calculated to be clinically insignificant and the 49.2% largest tumor volume of 325 prostatectomy specimens was used to determine the threshold tumor volume for insignificant prostate cancer. Because stage and grade represent the strongest determinants of cancer aggressiveness, we also calculated the tumor volume threshold for insignificant cancer after the selection of patients with organ confined prostate cancer without Gleason pattern 4/5. The analyses were performed for total tumor volume and for index tumor volume. The minimum threshold tumor volume of the index tumor and total tumor was 0.55 and 0.70 ml, respectively. After accounting for tumor stage and grade we obtained a threshold volume for the index tumor and total tumor of 1.3 and 2.5 ml, respectively. We confirmed the original value of the index tumor volume threshold of 0.5 ml for insignificant prostate cancer, and we demonstrated that clinically insignificant prostate cancer may include index Gleason score 6, pT2 tumors with volumes up to at least 1.3 ml. These results suggest a reconsideration of current methods and nomograms used for pretreatment risk assessment.

Reply

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is performed simultaneously with radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with prostate cancer to detect possible lymph node (LN) metastasis. However, PLND is typically not performed in patients with low-grade (Gleason score ≤ 6) and low-stage (≤ cT2) prostate cancer, as LN metastasis occurs in < 2% of these patients, 1 Partin A.W. Kattan M.W. Subong E.N. et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical state, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1445-1451 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar and lymphocele develops as a postoperative complication in < 10% of patients after PLND. 2 Musch M. Klevecka V. Roggenbuck U. et al. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol. 2008; 179: 923-928 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar , 3 Pepper R.J. Pati J. Kaisary A.V. The incidence and treatment of lymphoceles after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 772-775 Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar , 4 Augustin H. Hammerer P. Graefen M. et al. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: Results of a single center between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol. 2003; 43: 113-118 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar The symptoms of lymphocele include pelvic pain, leg pain, leg edema, and hydronephrosis. Nonetheless, the therapeutic efficacy of PLND is well known in patients with prostate cancer, and several studies report long-term survival for patients with LN positive prostate cancer treated with RP and PLND. 5 Steinberg G.D. Epstein J.I. Piantadosi S. et al. Management of D1 adenocarcinoma of the prostate; the Johns Hopkins experience 1974-1987. J Urol. 1990; 144: 1425-1432 PubMed Google Scholar , 6 Daneshmand S. Queck M.L. Stein J.P. et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long term results. J Urol. 2004; 172: 2252-2255 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar , 7 Pound C.R. Partin A.W. Epstein J.I. et al. Prostate-specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin North Am. 1997; 24: 395-406 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (533) Google Scholar However, long-term survival rates are decreased in patients having > 5 positive LNs detected in PLND. 6 Daneshmand S. Queck M.L. Stein J.P. et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long term results. J Urol. 2004; 172: 2252-2255 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (267) Google Scholar Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 76Issue 2PreviewMany analogies have been drawn between prostate cancer and breast cancer.1 A surgical parallel that has not been considered previously, is the management of lymphorrhea after radical prostatectomy. These authors describe the use of octreotide, a potent analog of somatostatin, to reduce significant lymphorrhea after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), thereby reducing the morbidity of prolonged lymph drainage. Full-Text PDF

Post-Radical Prostatectomy Inguinal Hernia: A Simple Surgical Intervention can Substantially Reduce the Incidence—Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial

After radical retropubic prostatectomy a postoperative inguinal hernia develops in 15% to 20% of patients. We investigated whether a simple prophylactic procedure during radical retropubic prostatectomy would reduce this incidence. A total of 294 consecutive patients scheduled for radical retropubic prostatectomy at our clinic were prospectively included in the study. Patients with a present inguinal hernia or a previous inguinal hernia surgery were not included in the analysis. The subjects were randomized for side of prophylactic intervention (left or right). At radical retropubic prostatectomy a nonresorbable figure-of-8 suture was placed lateral to the internal ring of the inguinal canal and the spermatic cord on either side according to outcome of the randomization. Patients were followed at regular followup visits at the clinic. At the end of the study all patients were invited for a final interview and examination by an independent examiner who was unaware of the side of intervention. Of the patients 86% (254) showed up for the final examination. The cumulative inguinal hernia incidence was 3.5% on the intervention side and 9.1% on the control side (log rank Mantel-Cox p = 0.011). There were no serious adverse events, and no increase in postoperative discomfort in the groin and testicular region on the intervention side. The procedure added 5 to 10 minutes to the duration of surgery. The prophylactic procedure was simple and safe to perform, and it decreased the risk of postoperative inguinal hernia formation by 62%. We believe it should be considered for patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy.

The Impact of Positive Surgical Margins on Mortality Following Radical Prostatectomy During the Prostate Specific Antigen Era

The presence of a positive surgical margin at radical prostatectomy has been linked to an increased risk of postoperative biochemical recurrence. We evaluated the impact of margin status on subsequent clinical progression and mortality. We reviewed the records of 11,729 patients who underwent prostatectomy between 1990 and 2006. Survival was estimated for patients with vs without a positive margin and compared using the log rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to analyze the impact of margin status on survival. Overall 3,651 (31.1%) men were identified with a positive margin. Median postoperative followup was 8.2 years (IQR 4.4, 12.1). The 10-year biochemical recurrence-free rate for patients with and without a positive margin was 56% and 77%, respectively (p <0.001), while 10-year local recurrence-free survival was 89% vs 95% (p <0.001). Margin status also stratified systemic progression-free survival (93% vs 97%, p <0.001), cancer specific survival (96% vs 99%, p <0.001) and overall survival (83% vs 88%, p <0.001). On multivariate analysis the presence of a positive margin was associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.80, p <0.0001), local recurrence (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.45-2.19, p <0.0001) and receipt of salvage therapy (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.58-2.02, p <0.0001) but was not a significant predictor of systemic progression (p = 0.95), cancer specific death (p = 0.15) or overall mortality (p = 0.16). The presence of a positive margin increased the risk of biochemical recurrence, local recurrence and the need for salvage treatment but was not independently associated with systemic progression, cancer specific death or overall mortality. These results should be considered when evaluating patients for adjuvant therapy.

Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Impact on Metastasis and Survival

Although secondary radiation therapy decreases the risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy, its impact on metastasis and survival is less well established. We evaluated the impact of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy on clinical progression and mortality. A total of 361 patients who received adjuvant radiation were matched based on clinicopathological features to patients who did not receive adjuvant radiation in a 2:1 case-control ratio. Postoperative survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. A second cohort of 2,657 men who experienced biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy was separately evaluated. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the impact of salvage radiotherapy on disease progression and survival. Adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with significantly improved 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (63% vs 45%, p <0.001), local recurrence-free survival (97% vs 82%, p <0.001) and a decreased need for late hormone therapy (17% vs 28%, p = 0.002) but did not impact systemic progression and overall survival (p = 0.94 and 0.27, respectively). Of the 2,657 patients who experienced biochemical recurrence after surgery 856 (32.3%) received salvage radiation. On multivariate analysis salvage radiotherapy decreased the risk of local recurrence (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06-0.28, p <0.0001) and delayed hormonal therapy (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93, p = 0.003) and systemic progression (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.45, p <0.0001) but did not significantly impact mortality (p = 0.48). Adjuvant and salvage radiation provide long-term local control and decrease the need for delayed hormonal therapy but neither improves survival. These results must be weighed against the potential morbidity of postoperative radiation when counseling patients.

Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Does Not Increase Small Bowel Within the Target Volume for Postoperative Radiotherapy

Laparoscopic or robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is often performed via a transperitoneal approach for prostate cancer, in contrast to open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Theoretically transgressing the peritoneum may introduce small bowel loops into the pelvis, increasing the risk of small bowel injury with adjuvant radiotherapy. We compared the incidence of small bowel within the planning target volume for radiotherapy to the prostate bed in patients who underwent open retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. A total of 25 patients recently treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy prospectively provided consent to undergo radiotherapy planning computerized tomography simulation to assess the incidence of small bowel within the prostate bed planning target volume. These studies were compared to radiotherapy planning computerized tomography in 50 patients who underwent open retropubic radical prostatectomy and received adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer. For all computerized tomography images 1 blinded observer delineated the distal small bowel loops and 1 blinded radiation oncologist delineated the superior extent of clinical and planning target volumes. The overlap rate between small bowel and planning target volume was 16% in the laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy groups (p = 0.579). There is no difference between transperitoneal laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy in the incidence of small bowel within the planning target volume for radiotherapy to the prostate bed. Thus, patients who undergo transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy do not face a higher risk of toxicity or compromise due to adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy should they require it.

Reply

Reply

Impact of puboprostatic ligament-sparing during anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy on urinary continence

Objective To evaluate the contribution of puboprostatic ligament-sparing technique in urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Methods A total of 74 men with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent RRP. Of whom, 50 patients were performed pubo-prostatic ligament-sparing technique(group A), while 24 patients were not(group B). Patients were evaluated by independent observer questionnaire to determine their urinary continence status. Results Mean patient age [(61.3±2.4) vs (60.8±2.1)years], serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values [14.3±1.2)ng/ml vs (14.7±1.3) ng/ml], operative time [(110.5±10.4)min vs (109.7±10.6) mini, estimated blood loss [(250.5±23.4) ml vs (253.4±22.3) ml], and positive surgical margin rate (6% vs 8%) were not significantly different between group A and B(P>0.05). The urinary con-tinence rate with the puboprostatic ligament-sparing technique at 1-year follow-up was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). Concision The puboprostatic ligament-sparing technique significantly enhances post-operative urinary continence after RRP. Key words: Prostatic neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Urinary incontinence; Puboprostatic ligament

Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Nab-Paclitaxel in High Risk Patients With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

Taxane based chemotherapy has activity in advanced prostate cancer but previous studies of neoadjuvant docetaxel demonstrated a prostate specific antigen response with no obvious antitumor activity. The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel, Abraxane), a novel nanoparticle based formulation, were assessed in patients with high risk, locally advanced prostate cancer. Eligible patients had locally advanced prostatic adenocarcinoma, clinical stage cT2b or greater, Gleason score 8 or greater, or serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or greater without metastatic disease. Patients received 2 cycles of 150 mg/m(2) nab-paclitaxel weekly for 3 weeks during each 4-week cycle, followed by radical prostatectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy. Efficacy assessments included pathological and prostate specific antigen response. A total of 19 patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and 18 underwent radical prostatectomy. Median pretreatment prostate specific antigen was 8.5 ng/ml and median Gleason score was 8. Despite the lack of complete pathological responses 5 of 18 patients (28%) had organ confined disease and 9 of 18 (50%) had specimen confined disease. Post-chemotherapy prostate specific antigen was decreased in 18 of 19 (95%) patients and median decrease was 2.9 ng/ml (35%, p <0.001). An initial prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy of 0.02 ng/ml or less was achieved in 17 of 18 (94%) patients. There were no significant perioperative complications. Cytoplasmic vacuolization (focal in 10 and extensive in 7) was evident in all but 1 patient (94%). Ten patients (56%) had grade 3 and 1 had grade 4 neutropenia with no febrile neutropenia. Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated. Similar to our experience with neoadjuvant docetaxel there were no pathological complete responses, although a possible histological antitumor effect was observed.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH—SURGERY: Anatomical Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy in Patients with a Preexisting Three-Piece Inflatable Prosthesis: A Series of Case Reports

Only few reports addressed the outcome of patients submitted to anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with an indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). To assess the feasibility and safety of RRP in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and a previously implanted with an IPP. We evaluated the surgical parameters and the follow-up functional results in this particular patient population. Four patients previously submitted to IPP implant for severe erectile dysfunction underwent RRP for organ-confined prostate cancer. Patients' charts were carefully reviewed to investigate pre- and perioperative details. Patients were evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Patients were then contacted to assess long-term functional and oncological outcome. The outcome of the procedures was comparable to a normal population in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization time, and pathological outcome. No injury to the preexisting penile implant was reported. Continence was obtained in 3 (75%) patients at catheter removal, and in 1 (25%) patient at the 1-month follow-up. No major intra- and postoperative complications were reported. All patients were able to use their prosthesis after RRP. No statistical difference in pre- and post-RRP EF domain scores was found. The presence of an IPP in patients with prostate cancer is not a contraindication to perform an anatomical RRP. Surgery can be performed safely without injuring the implant and the clinical outcome in these patients is satisfactory. Postoperative implant use is not affected by RRP.

A Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Study of Oral Thalidomide Versus Placebo for Androgen Dependent Prostate Cancer Treated With Intermittent Androgen Ablation

We determined whether thalidomide can prolong progression-free survival in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer treated with limited androgen deprivation therapy. A total of 159 patients were enrolled in a double-blind randomized trial to determine if thalidomide can improve the efficacy of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in hormone responsive patients with an increasing prostate specific antigen after primary definitive therapy for prostate cancer. Patients were randomized to 6 months of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist followed by 200 mg per day oral thalidomide or placebo (oral phase A). At the time of prostate specific antigen progression gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist was restarted for 6 additional months. Patients were then crossed over to the opposite drug and were treated until prostate specific antigen progression (oral phase B). Testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone were likewise monitored throughout the study. During oral phase A the median time to prostate specific antigen progression was 15 months for the thalidomide group compared to 9.6 months on placebo (p = 0.21). The median time to prostate specific antigen progression during oral phase B for the thalidomide group was 17.1 vs 6.6 months on placebo (p = 0.0002). No differences in time to serum testosterone normalization between the thalidomide and placebo arms were documented during oral phase A and oral phase B. Thalidomide was tolerable although dose reductions occurred in 47% (58 of 124) of patients. Despite thalidomide having no effect on testosterone normalization, there was a clear effect on prostate specific antigen progression during oral phase B. This is the first study to our knowledge to demonstrate the effects of thalidomide using intermittent hormonal therapy.